What is the answer to 48/2(9+3)?

[Jantar]

Are you saying in long hand 24 divided by 2 times (12) is 2

I thought 24 divivded by 24 was 1 .

.... sorry couldn't resist

Yep, I failed. Corrected now.

[BoristheBiter]

Right, my main point in that question was just to clarify that yes, you do need to add those "implied" brackets to get the correct answer.

i.e. you need to type it into your calculator as 1 / ( ... ), and you only know you need to do that, by already knowing the correct formula.

The contradiction I referred to was: a. you were happy to type 48/2(9+3) as written into your calculator and get the answer you expected; but if you type your new formula into a calculator as written you'll get an answer you consider wrong. Isn't that a "double standard"?

The formula as presented by you intially is sloppy, and requires use of an assumption that is not supported by standard mathematics. None of your posts in this thread have provided a valid standard mathematical reason to assume those "implied brackets".


(test, see if Latex link will work here:

Xc=1/2piFC

Xc=1/(2piFC)


OK, dunno why the latex link is so awful (e.g. it's not showing the division line), but it shows the right overall format.
)



Part 2: if you were told X = 1/2 + 3, what would you say X is?

easy 3.5


No matter how you say it 2(9+3) is to be completed as a complete equation
If you don't allow for implied brackets then how do you know it's 2*(9+3) as the multiplication is implied also?

[Usarka]

Remove all assumptions except the absolute necessary and then go for the most likely.

Question? What is the / supposed to represent, a solidus or a ÷?

Assumption: Computer users use the / symbol in place of a ÷ and it is reasonable for normal people to understand this. Valid.

Assumption: People write complex mathematically forumlae on a single line and it's reasonable for normal people to interpret the / accurately. Retarded.

Conclusion: The answer is 288 or the formula is written poorly and the person who wrote it should get an F regardless of the answer.

[bogan]

No matter how you say it 2(9+3) is to be completed as a complete equation
If you don't allow for implied brackets then how do you know it's 2*(9+3) as the multiplication is implied also?

Multiplication is always implied when a number is used as a coefficient. To say it must be done first as a 'complete equation' is to imply brackets.

Maybe the shorthand changes depending on a persons use of such things, for example I do a lot of programming, which is done in single lines obviously, and everything following the / is absofuckinglutely not the denominator. Is why I put brackets around the whole denominator every time, and I also explicitly put the implied * between a coefficient and bracketed term. I mean, you wouldn't want my programs crapping out and failing before they become skynet would you?

[marie_speeds]

Right, my main point in that question was just to clarify that yes, you do need to add those "implied" brackets to get the correct answer.

i.e. you need to type it into your calculator as 1 / ( ... ), and you only know you need to do that, by already knowing the correct formula.

The contradiction I referred to was: a. you were happy to type 48/2(9+3) as written into your calculator and get the answer you expected; but if you type your new formula into a calculator as written you'll get an answer you consider wrong. Isn't that a "double standard"?

The formula as presented by you intially is sloppy, and requires use of an assumption that is not supported by standard mathematics. None of your posts in this thread have provided a valid standard mathematical reason to assume those "implied brackets".


(test, see if Latex link will work here:

Xc=1/2piFC =

Xc=1/(2piFC) =

)

And none of your justifications have supported a reasoning to suggest that there were no implied brackets in the OP Equation as it was written. So now having written an equation set out exactly in the same format as the OP Equation and using my method of implied brackets (which you and others have steadfastly told me is wrong) my equation is "sloppy"

In engineering class you'd have to be a donkey's arse to solve it using your way of no implied brackets i.e 1/2 multiplied by pifC


The correct answer to this thread is 2 given the way the op equation has been written in this thread. Using implied brackets, just as the answer to my equation is 39.79 (2 d.p) using implied brackets, as there is no other way it could be done. Using your way of no implied brackets on my equation based on the way I have written it would result in a wrong answer.
Both equations were written exactly the same way, and both had values to be entered and calculated, so it is irrelevant if one knows what Xc stands for or not. The fact is that your method of solving can now not be applied to my equation. However if you now want to post pictures and manipulate both equations to suit your answer then please feel free to do so

[pzkpfw]

Nah, I'll stop there. Your use of emoticons trumps any logic and actual math...

[marie_speeds]

Oh no I have a meeting to go to....however will I get through it wondering just how these guys are now going to change their arguments or twist the equations to suit themselves......

[bogan]

And none of your justifications have supported a reasoning to suggest that there were no implied brackets in the OP Equation as it was written. So now having written an equation set out exactly in the same format as the OP Equation and using my method of implied brackets (which you and others have steadfastly told me is wrong) my equation is "sloppy"

In engineering class you'd have to be a donkey's arse to solve it using your way of no implied brackets i.e 1/2 multiplied by pifC


The correct answer to this thread is 2 given the way the op equation has been written in this thread. Using implied brackets, just as the answer to my equation is 39.79 (2 d.p) using implied brackets, as there is no other way it could be done. Using your way of no implied brackets on my equation based on the way I have written it would result in a wrong answer.
Both equations were written exactly the same way, and both had values to be entered and calculated, so it is irrelevant if one knows what Xc stands for or not. The fact is that your method of solving can now not be applied to my equation. However if you now want to post pictures and manipulate both equations to suit your answer then please feel free to do so

You still don't seem to comprehend that the original equation is written in a way that leaves it open to different interpretations, I even posted a well known example of 1/2mvv to show when it is required to be interpreted the other way.

I'll state it again since you may have missed it the last time:

I mean c'mon, maths is a fairly exact science, if an equation can give two different answers with a 50/50 split depending on the interpretation, it has to be the equation writer that is wrong? surely everyone can see that

[BoristheBiter]

Remove all assumptions except the absolute necessary and then go for the most likely.

Question? What is the / supposed to represent, a solidus or a ÷?

Assumption: Computer users use the / symbol in place of a ÷ and it is reasonable for normal people to understand this. Valid.

Assumption: People write complex mathematically forumlae on a single line and it's reasonable for normal people to interpret the / accurately. Retarded.

Conclusion: The answer is 288 or the formula is written poorly and the person who wrote it should get an F regardless of the answer.

What is complex about this? nothing
Is this basic math? yes
Conclusion: as i see you have failed basic math.

As stated 2(9+3) is complete.

[imdying]

You still don't seem to comprehend that the original equation is written in a way that leaves it open to different interpretations

Don't get married mate, you'll find out that they're all that belligerent. You might as well stop now because you've skewered her and there's no way in hell her pride will let her admit that.

[bogan]

Don't get married mate, you'll find out that they're all that belligerent. You might as well stop now because you've skewered her and there's no way in hell her pride will let her admit that.

So it's; skewer her, then leave. Got it

[imdying]

Now you're getting it

[avgas]

Quick question to all. have a think about it

Do brackets (in BODMAS) only relate to the contents in the brackets ?

Should tell you why computers like the number 2......

[Usarka]

What is complex about this? nothing
Is this basic math? yes
Conclusion: as i see you have failed basic math.

As per bogan's comment - if you need to interpret it based on non-documented rules then it's poorly designed.

The rules taught at school are BODMAS or BEDMAS which gives 288, please show me the NZQA approved text that shows otherwise otherwise I refuse to sanction your accusation of fail.

Quick question to all. have a think about it

Do brackets (in BODMAS) only relate to the contents in the brackets ?

Should tell you why computers like the number 2......

The few computers I tried it on required inserting a multiplier between the 2 and the bracket which might be where you are angling with that.

But the same computers don't do calclus. Eg type =4x+6 into excel and computer will say no.

[Jantar]

...The few computers I tried it on required inserting a multiplier between the 2 and the bracket which might be where you are angling with that.

But the same computers don't do calclus. Eg type =4x+6 into excel and computer will say no.

Correct, and hence the formula is poorly written in this case. However if we were given the origional formula with variables and the appropriate values for those variables then it would become much clearer.

As is, it is the writing of the formula that is the fail, not the mechanics in coming to a solution.